Tustin Council Bans Sale and Distribution of Kratom Products, Keeps Possession Legal

The Tustin City Council unanimously approved Ordinance No. 1571 on Oct. 21, prohibiting the sale, advertising and distribution of kratom products within city limits while leaving possession and use unchanged. Mayor Lundberg said the ordinance targets storefront and retail availability rather than personal consumption.

The measure drew more than a dozen public comments during the consent‑calendar public‑input period, with speakers sharply divided. Ryan Sherman of the California Narcotic Officers Association urged the council to act against “concentrated synthetic 7‑OH” products and cited FDA warnings that such concentrated compounds have no lawful use as dietary supplements and have been linked to overdose risk. Susan Efferd told the council that her 22‑year‑old son Matthew died after using whole‑leaf kratom and urged a full ban. At the same time, several speakers who identified themselves as patients or advocates — including Misty Brown, Laura Romney, Jennifer Gillis and Allison Smith of the Global Kratom Coalition — said natural, whole‑leaf kratom has helped them manage pain or addiction and that the public‑safety problem is primarily illegal, concentrated synthetic derivatives.

“Natural kratom and concentrated synthetic 7‑OH are not the same thing,” Allison Smith told the council, urging rules that distinguish lab‑created concentrated products from traditional leaf products. Suzanne Banquette, the city’s outreach consultant for other items on the agenda, did not present technical advice on the pharmacology but recommended clear public messaging and a timeline for community engagement on legacy matters.

Council members expressed concern about enforcement and the city’s capacity to test products at retail. “This ordinance does not ban possession or use,” the mayor said, clarifying that the measure restricts sale and distribution. Multiple councilmembers said they preferred a targeted approach against synthetic concentrates but concluded that, in the absence of clear state or federal standards and given the emergence of adulterated products, prohibiting retail sale is the most practical near‑term approach for public safety. Councilmember Fink asked staff to coordinate with the county public‑health officer and return with more technical input before a future second reading or related rulemaking.

The ordinance passed on roll call 5–0 (Council members Fink, Snell, Gallagher, Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen and Mayor Lundberg voting yes). The council did not change possession law; the staff implementation plan and enforcement approach were left to the city manager and legal staff to develop.

What happens next: staff will prepare implementing guidance and enforcement procedures and will report back to council with additional input from public‑health officials and local enforcement, as requested by councilmembers.